Comment by forapurpose | Hacker News Reader

Comment by forapurpose | Hacker News Reader

> "Deleting stuff is just useless. It’s already [been] there. Perhaps the person looking for you copied the information. So it becomes a game of total misdirection: you have to keep the predator busy.”

This technique applies much more widely than personal privacy. It's exactly how propagandists/trolls work: Keep the seekers of truth busy. In the case of propaganda, the roles are reversed, of course; the seekers are the good guys, but the trolls' method is the same.

HN is particularly susceptible to it. Its method for dealing with bad information is that honest users will correct it with good information - the old, generally good idea that the answer to bad speech is more speech. Unfortunately, that's exactly what the trolls want, to keep the seekers of truth busy and not addressing the real issues. And the contest is highly asymmetrical: anyone can post a falsehood in seconds; it can take hours or more for the honest person to find the truth of it. The HN approach assumes a pact of good faith; propagandists take advantage of that pact. HN also forbids calling someone a troll, so the guidelines create for them, in a way, a safe, protected playground. I haven't looked at the front page discussion about Chinese foreign policy today, but I bet I know what I'll find.

The solutions aren't easy; this technique wasn't invented by social media end users, but long before the Internet by intelligence professionals.

> HN is particularly susceptible to it. Its method for dealing with bad information is that honest users will correct it with good information - the old, generally good idea that the answer to bad speech is more speech.

But remember with HN that "truth" is groupthink. There are many topics you cannot discuss here, even rationally. You will be punished with -1's, rate limiting, flagged/killed, shadowbanning, or other tools only those with more points (Read: positive groupthink) have.

I came to HN for the hard discussion about technology. I find that unless I agree with the elites in Silicon Valley, that my opinions and facts are not wanted or cared about.

And regarding the "the old, generally good idea that the answer to bad speech is more speech."....

You're commenting too fast. Slow down. (In other words, shut the fuck up and go away.)

> HN that "truth" is groupthink

Not in my experience. I mean, people are people everywhere, but IMHO HN is exceptional is this regard; I see less of it here than almost anywhere else.

> unless I agree with the elites in Silicon Valley, that my opinions and facts are not wanted or cared about.

The phrase "elites in Silicon Valley" conveys a lot. It throws some (unknown) individuals into a group, characterizes them all as just a stereotype, pigeon-holes them all into being representatives of it, and accuses them in the next sentence of abusing this role that someone else put them in. Personally, I don't know who the phrase refers to; I find that the responses I get here rely much more on the soundness of my fact, reasoning, and expertise than on premeditated opinion, and the quality of my communication.

> You're commenting too fast. Slow down. (In other words, shut the fuck up and go away.)

That's produced by an algorithm; I wouldn't take it personally.

> Not in my experience. I mean, people are people everywhere, but IMHO HN is exceptional is this regard; I see less of it here than almost anywhere else.

As an experiment, go to some relevant thread and courteously imply you don't share the belief that Rust is the greatest invention since penicillin.

Then watch what happens to your karma.

That depends a lot on how you present that argument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com